Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1. Funny.. the threats, embargoes, and occasional bombings did WHAT?
Let's try this again: During the Clinton administration's program of enforcing the No-fly zones etc...what was the negative outcome? Did Iraq attack someone? Did they invade another country? Did they gas their own people?
The negative outcome is because we looked like pussies, other countries started taking more hard line stances against us and extremist terror organizations decided the time was ripe to take advantage... You don't show strength by taking weak stances
Lol...you honestly believe that enforcing the no-fly zone made extremists like AQ view us as weak?
The negative outcome is that there was no real enforcement...
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you did it again...
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you did it again... so here's some embargos and sanctions
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you did it again and he's a cruise missile on a small target
Saddam - We won't do it again
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you are not allowing inspections per the agreement and you violated the no-fly again
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhhh Saddam, you're still doing it
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you're still doing it and here's another cruise missile
Saddam - We won't do it any more
The negative outcome is the violations of the cease fire which the cease-fire was the ONLY thing that stopped the military action the first time.... it did hurt our image on national security... making us look like pussies.... which hurt us in the long run... we did look weak in the eyes of our enemies and those who wish to do us harm... ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY
Let's try this again: During the Clinton administration's program of enforcing the No-fly zones etc...what was the negative outcome? Did Iraq attack someone? Did they invade another country? Did they gas their own people?
Lol...you honestly believe that enforcing the no-fly zone made extremists like AQ view us as weak?
The negative outcome is that there was no real enforcement...
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you did it again...
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you did it again... so here's some embargos and sanctions
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you did it again and he's a cruise missile on a small target
Saddam - We won't do it again
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you are not allowing inspections per the agreement and you violated the no-fly again
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhhh Saddam, you're still doing it
Saddam - We won't do it any more
Clinton - Uhhh Saddam, you're still doing it and here's another cruise missile
Saddam - We won't do it any more
The negative outcome is the violations of the cease fire which the cease-fire was the ONLY thing that stopped the military action the first time.... it did hurt our image on national security... making us look like pussies.... which hurt us in the long run... we did look weak in the eyes of our enemies and those who wish to do us harm... ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY
OK...you keep telling yourself that by consistently enforcing a no-fly zone created shortly after we utterly decimated a foreign army within days and with very limited US casualties, we made ourselves look weak.
Run with that in 2010.
For the umpteen BILLIONTH time...
Goals in Iraq
Disarming Saddam Hussein
Strike a major blow in the war on terror
Establish democracy in Iraq, keep Iraq whole and help transform the region
Intimidate other rogue nations and curb proliferation
Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region, enhance Israel's security and facilitate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict
All of which we have had success in, except for the end part of the last one about resolving Israeli Arab relations, which is probably never going to happen anyway.... could some things have been done better? Yep... does not take away from the fact that we have victory and had success
you think we made isarel more secure by making iran the strongest country in the region?
god you are stupid, why don't you go slap your kid around some more
Did you read the subsequent sentence I wrote??
You buffoon
But I am curious.....what would we be looking for as a reason to go in there? I am curious as to what you would have deemed a valid reason to attack.
well, I don't think we should be "looking for" a reason to invade anyone - that's my point! But I'm pretty sure that's just word choices on your part
The only valid reasons that comes to mind would be:
1. an imminent and direct threat to our livelihood that could not be prevented in any other manner.
2. an imminent and direct threat to an ally with whom we have treaty obligations (again, when no other manner of prevention is sufficient)
3. Genocide when no other manner of prevention is sufficient - but I'm very, very dubious of this one.
you think we made isarel more secure by making iran the strongest country in the region?
god you are stupid, why don't you go slap your kid around some more
Did you read the subsequent sentence I wrote??
You buffoon
um the goal would have never worked. anyone who thought that destabilizing iraq would help israel is an idiot
The Leftist doctrine:
"Speak softly and carry a toothpick."
The Leftist doctrine:
"Speak softly and carry a toothpick."
Did you read the subsequent sentence I wrote??
You buffoon
um the goal would have never worked. anyone who thought that destabilizing iraq would help israel is an idiot
Ummm... perhaps you should continue reading what I wrote.... I stated " which is probably never going to happen anyway"... reading comprehension is not your cup of tea, now is it???
And you think a tyrant government, willing to kill it's own people, and who did launch SCUDS at Israel during the conflict to try and get them involved, etc, is better than the chance at a freedom based government in terms of the position of Israel???
I think you are showing yourself to be the idiot
The Leftist doctrine:
"Speak softly and carry a toothpick."
Obama changed the adage...
Stick it softly and carry a big speak
um the goal would have never worked. anyone who thought that destabilizing iraq would help israel is an idiot
Ummm... perhaps you should continue reading what I wrote.... I stated " which is probably never going to happen anyway"... reading comprehension is not your cup of tea, now is it???
And you think a tyrant government, willing to kill it's own people, and who did launch SCUDS at Israel during the conflict to try and get them involved, etc, is better than the chance at a freedom based government in terms of the position of Israel???
I think you are showing yourself to be the idiot
sadaam was the only thing that kept iran in check. now iran controls a majority of the elected iraq government while also having control over every major militant group there. iraq is 0 threat to iran now and iran will do as it pleases which it has done since the fall of iraq.
For the umpteen BILLIONTH time...
Goals in Iraq
A day late and a dollar short. Should have happened under Bush I. What actually happened was they probably made the place more unstable by removing Saddam.Disarming Saddam Hussein
How? Which influential terror sect was damaged?Strike a major blow in the war on terror
Really? So Iraq is a Democratic nation at this time? I didn't realize that.Establish democracy in Iraq, keep Iraq whole and help transform the region
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Silly rabbit. Has the terror attacks stopped? Has the attempts stopped? WHO'S intimidated? Tricks are for kids.Intimidate other rogue nations and curb proliferation
"Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region" huh? I dunno...sounds a bit...MADE UP to me.Preserve and expand U.S. influence in the region, enhance Israel's security and facilitate resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict
Face it bub...it was one big debacle. AKA....FAILURE!!!All of which we have had success in, except for the end part of the last one about resolving Israeli Arab relations, which is probably never going to happen anyway.... could some things have been done better? Yep... does not take away from the fact that we have victory and had success
Ummm... perhaps you should continue reading what I wrote.... I stated " which is probably never going to happen anyway"... reading comprehension is not your cup of tea, now is it???
And you think a tyrant government, willing to kill it's own people, and who did launch SCUDS at Israel during the conflict to try and get them involved, etc, is better than the chance at a freedom based government in terms of the position of Israel???
I think you are showing yourself to be the idiot
sadaam was the only thing that kept iran in check. now iran controls a majority of the elected iraq government while also having control over every major militant group there. iraq is 0 threat to iran now and iran will do as it pleases which it has done since the fall of iraq.
Yes.. his tyranny, rape, murder, etc has his people oppressed and fearful... and threats of WoMD use, constant warfare, etc toward Iran... hardly as simple as being "in check"
But nice try
Please link to the Iranian control of Iraqi government (no winger or conspiracy theory pages will be accepted)...
There are many who are baffled by Iranian confidence and defiance in the face of American pressure on the nuclear issue. This is the reason for that confidence: Should the United States attack Iran's nuclear facilities, or even if the United States does not attack, Iran holds the key to the success of the American strategy in Iraq. Everything done since 2006 fails if the United States must maintain tens of thousands of troops in Iraq in perpetuity. Should the United States leave, Iran has the capability of forcing a new order not only on Iraq but also on the rest of the Persian Gulf. Should the United States stay, Iran has the ability to prevent the stabilization of Iraq, or even to escalate violence to the point that the Americans are drawn back into combat. The Iranians understand the weakness of America's position in Iraq, and they are confident that they can use that to influence American policy elsewhere.
The Leftist doctrine:
"Speak softly and carry a toothpick."
Obama changed the adage...
Stick it softly and carry a big speak
in terms of pakistan, obama changed it to:
"root out the militants in your land or we will bomb you"
day 1 as president he sent the drones in and they havent left and more are coming. obama did more to disrupt the taliban in 1 year than bush did in 8
Obama changed the adage...
Stick it softly and carry a big speak
in terms of pakistan, obama changed it to:
"root out the militants in your land or we will bomb you"
day 1 as president he sent the drones in and they havent left and more are coming. obama did more to disrupt the taliban in 1 year than bush did in 8
I do not disagree that Obama showed strength and did what he had to do as it pertained to the Taliban in Pakistan.
But I also give credit where credit is due and I do not allow spin of "data" to dictate my thinking.
Over the 8, now 10 years we were learning about the enemy and doing the best we could with the technology we had. We continued to adapt and change our tactics and we continued to increase our technology in an effort to be most efficient with our objectives.
As a result, the the actions of the former CiC and the application of earlier lessons learned and use of new technology developed over the years by our present CiC have resulted in a steady very effective and very efficient levying of pressure on the taliban.
Or we could simply give Obama the credit...but then we are saying that Obama does not take advanatge of lessons learned by trial and error.
Now that our combat forces are finally out of Iraq, the RepubliCONs want to claim victory. But what have we won? A democracy? Hardly, there was an election in the spring and it has not yet been resolved. It may never be resolved. The rest of our force is scheduled to leave by this time next year.
After we leave we will then find out what kind of country Iraq will be. My guess is that another strongman, another Saddam Hussein will take over. Perhaps another civil war first.
So then what have we accomplished? I mean beyond the trillion dollars spent, the over 4400 dead and tens of thousands of wounded American service people, the over 100,000 killed Iraqis, the millions of displaced Iraqis, the streangthening of Iran into the regional power, the shreading of the American image as "the good duys", what have we accomplished?
What we have demonstrated to the world is the strategic limit of the power of the United States. Dictators the world over now have a model to gauge their actions against. The blow back from this folly will be with us far into the future.
You really don't understand what Iraq was all about, do you? I don't think you do.
sadaam was the only thing that kept iran in check. now iran controls a majority of the elected iraq government while also having control over every major militant group there. iraq is 0 threat to iran now and iran will do as it pleases which it has done since the fall of iraq.
Yes.. his tyranny, rape, murder, etc has his people oppressed and fearful... and threats of WoMD use, constant warfare, etc toward Iran... hardly as simple as being "in check"
But nice try
Please link to the Iranian control of Iraqi government (no winger or conspiracy theory pages will be accepted)...
Bill O'Reilly: Stratfor.com Intel Briefing - Stratfor.com: The U.S. Withdrawal and Limited Options in Iraq
here is a good start from stratfor, I will just ignore you if you discredit them, unfortunately, I can't repost the stratfor articles I get b/c its a paid service with copyright, but apparently bill o riely gets access to some of them and that is one of the good ones.
this is a good paragraph from it:
There are many who are baffled by Iranian confidence and defiance in the face of American pressure on the nuclear issue. This is the reason for that confidence: Should the United States attack Iran's nuclear facilities, or even if the United States does not attack, Iran holds the key to the success of the American strategy in Iraq. Everything done since 2006 fails if the United States must maintain tens of thousands of troops in Iraq in perpetuity. Should the United States leave, Iran has the capability of forcing a new order not only on Iraq but also on the rest of the Persian Gulf. Should the United States stay, Iran has the ability to prevent the stabilization of Iraq, or even to escalate violence to the point that the Americans are drawn back into combat. The Iranians understand the weakness of America's position in Iraq, and they are confident that they can use that to influence American policy elsewhere.
but you need to read the whole thing. I will try to find other instances of their iraq/iran articles online in legal places like Bill's website b/c I have tens of them archived in my daily emails from stratfor.
Did you read the subsequent sentence I wrote??
You buffoon
um the goal would have never worked. anyone who thought that destabilizing iraq would help israel is an idiot
Ummm... perhaps you should continue reading what I wrote.... I stated " which is probably never going to happen anyway"... reading comprehension is not your cup of tea, now is it???
And you think a tyrant government, willing to kill it's own people, and who did launch SCUDS at Israel during the conflict to try and get them involved, etc, is better than the chance at a freedom based government in terms of the position of Israel???
I think you are showing yourself to be the idiot
Yes.. his tyranny, rape, murder, etc has his people oppressed and fearful... and threats of WoMD use, constant warfare, etc toward Iran... hardly as simple as being "in check"
But nice try
Please link to the Iranian control of Iraqi government (no winger or conspiracy theory pages will be accepted)...
Bill O'Reilly: Stratfor.com Intel Briefing - Stratfor.com: The U.S. Withdrawal and Limited Options in Iraq
here is a good start from stratfor, I will just ignore you if you discredit them, unfortunately, I can't repost the stratfor articles I get b/c its a paid service with copyright, but apparently bill o riely gets access to some of them and that is one of the good ones.
this is a good paragraph from it:
There are many who are baffled by Iranian confidence and defiance in the face of American pressure on the nuclear issue. This is the reason for that confidence: Should the United States attack Iran's nuclear facilities, or even if the United States does not attack, Iran holds the key to the success of the American strategy in Iraq. Everything done since 2006 fails if the United States must maintain tens of thousands of troops in Iraq in perpetuity. Should the United States leave, Iran has the capability of forcing a new order not only on Iraq but also on the rest of the Persian Gulf. Should the United States stay, Iran has the ability to prevent the stabilization of Iraq, or even to escalate violence to the point that the Americans are drawn back into combat. The Iranians understand the weakness of America's position in Iraq, and they are confident that they can use that to influence American policy elsewhere.
but you need to read the whole thing. I will try to find other instances of their iraq/iran articles online in legal places like Bill's website b/c I have tens of them archived in my daily emails from stratfor.
Has the capability... not quite the same as your assertion that it DOES....
And again, an opinion piece does not make it so.... Please show something that directly supports your assertion
in terms of pakistan, obama changed it to:
"root out the militants in your land or we will bomb you"
day 1 as president he sent the drones in and they havent left and more are coming. obama did more to disrupt the taliban in 1 year than bush did in 8
I do not disagree that Obama showed strength and did what he had to do as it pertained to the Taliban in Pakistan.
But I also give credit where credit is due and I do not allow spin of "data" to dictate my thinking.
Over the 8, now 10 years we were learning about the enemy and doing the best we could with the technology we had. We continued to adapt and change our tactics and we continued to increase our technology in an effort to be most efficient with our objectives.
As a result, the the actions of the former CiC and the application of earlier lessons learned and use of new technology developed over the years by our present CiC have resulted in a steady very effective and very efficient levying of pressure on the taliban.
Or we could simply give Obama the credit...but then we are saying that Obama does not take advanatge of lessons learned by trial and error.
I agree mostly with what you say, but it still doesn't excuse bush from not doing anything about pakistan and allowing them to do and harbor basically anything and anyone they wanted.
I know that he didn't want to send in troops to the FATA area since that would be considered an actual invasion and obama skirted this with the drones, but obama also put pressure directly on the pakistan government and that ended up in the raids on south and north warzistan by pakistan army themselves. those attacks were very effective and left taliban little room to hide in two former strongholds
